Search

Optimizing anticancer treatment and medication therapy in older patients with cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach, with a strong collaboration between geriatricians, oncologists and pharmacists. While all patients can benefit, some clinical situations seem to be high-priority. Careful attention should be given to patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and/or diabetes, which are prone to decompensate during anticancer treatment and often involve multiple medications. Another great concern is the risk of falls, closely related to polypharmacy, hence the need for a comprehensive medication review. Managing the pharmacological treatment of depression is also challenging and require shared expertise. Finally, pharmacists can prove valuable in situations of adherence difficulties or use of complementary medicines. Collaborative practice should begin at initiation of anticancer treatment and continue throughout the care pathway, as continuous reassessment is essential. Although the integration of pharmacists in multidisciplinary teams is often challenged by funding, collaborative should still be strongly encouraged. [Display omitted] • Reducing medication iatrogenesis is a major challenge to optimize cancer treatment. • Geriatrician/oncologist and pharmacist collaboration is crucial in geriatric oncology. • Collaborative practice should be incorporated throughout the whole care pathway. • Economic evaluations and pricing models is needed to support this collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper aims to provide a commentary response to "Stakeholder experiences of deprescribing psychotropic medicines for challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities". Design/methodology/approach: The commentary provides some evidence-based perspectives on the risks and challenges of psychiatric drug-withdrawal, emphasising the importance of the patient experience in deprescribing decisions. It also makes the case for clinical clarity and carer-engagement in optimising deprescribing outcomes for individuals. Some clinical reflections are provided. Findings: Whilst efforts to reduce the overmedication of people with learning disabilities are welcomed, there is lacking evidence around this population's experience of adverse effects from psychiatric deprescribing decisions, including differentiating between withdrawal and relapse effects. Clinical clarity and carer engagement are key to safe and effective prescribing, although in reality, this can be challenging. Originality/value: This paper will be of value to all professionals with a role in the effective deprescribing of psychiatric medications with and/or for people with intellectual disability. It provides perspectives on aspects of stakeholder experience that warrant further consideration and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Deprescribing fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) is promising for reducing the risk of falling in older adults. Applying appropriate deprescribing in practice can be difficult due to the outcome uncertainties associated with stopping FRIDs. The ADFICE_IT intervention addresses this complexity with a clinical decision support system (CDSS) that facilitates optimum deprescribing of FRIDs by using a fall-risk prediction model, aggregation of deprescribing guidelines, and joint medication management. Methods: The development process of the CDSS is described in this paper. Development followed a user-centered design approach in which users and experts were involved throughout each phase. In phase I, a prototype of the CDSS was developed which involved a literature and systematic review, European survey (n = 581), and semi-structured interviews with clinicians (n = 19), as well as the aggregation and testing of deprescribing guidelines and the development of the fall-risk prediction model. In phase II, the feasibility of the CDSS was tested by means of two usability testing rounds with users (n = 11). Results: The final CDSS consists of five web pages. A connection between the Electronic Health Record allows for the retrieval of patient data into the CDSS. Key design requirements for the CDSS include easy-to-use features for fast-paced clinical environments, actionable deprescribing recommendations, information transparency, and visualization of the patient's fall-risk estimation. Key elements for the software include a modular architecture, open source, and good security. Conclusion: The ADFICE_IT CDSS supports physicians in deprescribing FRIDs optimally to prevent falls in older patients. Due to continuous user and expert involvement, each new feedback round led to an improved version of the system. Currently, a cluster-randomized controlled trial with process evaluation at hospitals in the Netherlands is being conducted to test the effect of the CDSS on falls. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (date; 7-7-2022, identifier: NCT05449470). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Polypharmacy in haemodialysis patients can not only manifest as the continued prescribing of unnecessary medications but also has the potential to increase medication‐related hospital admissions, morbidity, and mortality. A validated deprescribing algorithm has recently been developed, specifically targeted at dialysis patients. This paper audits the experience of implementing this algorithm in Australian dialysis settings. Aim: The aim of this paper was to evaluate the usefulness and applicability of the pharmacist‐led Toronto deprescribing tool in Australian haemodialysis settings. Method: The pharmacist‐led deprescribing algorithm was implemented across two metropolitan sites and one rural site. The audit focused on five medications that could potentially be deprescribed in the target patient group (diuretics, alpha blockers, statins, proton pump inhibitors [PPIs], and quinine). Between 1 and 12 months later, a reaudit was conducted, with patients followed up to confirm if medications remained deprescribed. Results: Two hundred and eleven patients across three sites were reviewed. Application of the algorithm resulted in 168 medications deemed appropriate to deprescribe. Of these 168 medications, 56 (33%) were initially deprescribed, with 50 medications (30%) remaining deprescribed on reaudit. The deprescribing rates varied between the three different services, with initial deprescribing rates ranging from 18% to 61%. After follow‐up, deprescribing changes across target medications were fairly static, with only a small number of patients restarting either their diuretic or PPI. Conclusion: The pharmacist‐led deprescribing algorithm resulted in substantial deprescribing across the three sites. Deprescribing rates varied between the sites due to differences in the team model that the pharmacist worked within and the method of the rollout. Further studies should draw on aspects such as finding enablers to overcome prescriber and patient concerns about deprescribing and the aspects of which team models lead to higher rates of successful deprescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of acid suppression therapy (AST) is a common approach for managing a wide spectrum of acid peptic disorders. Histamine type 2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most widely prescribed AST in routine clinical practice. However, an exponential surge in the prescriptions of PPIs, such as Omeprazole, Esomeprazole, Pantoprazole, Lansoprazole in recent years and their associated adverse effects have raised concern about their inappropriate and overuse, both in children and adults. To address these issues, a three-step modified Delphi polling process was employed to establish best practice consensus statements for rationalizing the use of acid suppressants. A multidisciplinary expert panel of 13 health professionals across medical specialties, including gastroenterologists, hepatologists, pediatric gastroenterologists, pediatricians, otolaryngologists, cardiologists, nephrologists, gynecologist and orthopedists actively contributed to this collaborative process of consensus development. The expert panel proposed 21 consensus statements providing best practice points on the general use and safety of acid suppressants based on a comprehensive review of scientific literature and clinical expertise. The panel also collaboratively developed a PPI deprescribing algorithm. Altogether, this consensus paper offers evidence-based recommendations and guidance for the rational use of acid suppressants with a blueprint for deprescribing PPIs. This consensus paper contributes to aiding primary care practitioners in improving patient outcomes and minimizing healthcare costs. Additionally, it enhances patient safety and curtail inappropriate usage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Anticholinergic medications block the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brain and peripheral nervous system. Many medications have anticholinergic properties, and the cumulative effect of these medications is termed anticholinergic burden. Increased anticholinergic burden can have short-term side effects such as dry mouth, blurred vision and urinary retention as well as long-term effects including dementia, worsening physical function and falls. Methods We carried out a systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis (MA) looking at randomised controlled trials addressing interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in older adults. Results We identified seven papers suitable for inclusion in our SR and MA. Interventions included multi-disciplinary involvement in medication reviews and deprescribing of AC medications. Pooled data revealed no significant difference in outcomes between control and intervention group for falls (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.52–1.11, n  = 647), cognition (mean difference = 1.54, 95% CI: −0.04 to 3.13, n  = 405), anticholinergic burden (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI: −0.11 to 0.18, n  = 710) or quality of life (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI: −0.04 to 0.12, n  = 461). Discussion Overall, there was no significant difference with interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden. As we did not see a significant change in anticholinergic burden scores following interventions, it is likely other outcomes would not change. Short follow-up time and lack of training and support surrounding successful deprescribing may have contributed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deprescribing is the process of reducing or stopping medications when they are unnecessary, have more harm than benefit, or do not align with healthcare goals. The field of deprescribing has grown rapidly in the past decade due to the global problem of medication overuse. The first International Conference on Deprescribing (ICOD) was held in Denmark in September 2022, bringing together 250 participants from around the world. This special issue contains 25 papers that cover a range of topics related to deprescribing, including research, patient/provider communication, knowledge synthesis, deprescribing interventions, patient perspectives, interprofessional collaboration, and real-world deprescribing patterns. The papers aim to inspire and inform further growth and innovation in the field of deprescribing. [Extracted from the article]

This review explores the current landscape and future directions of deprescribing and polypharmacy practices in Jordan. The prevalence of polypharmacy, defined as the concurrent use of multiple medications by an individual, has been increasing in recent years due to various factors, such as population aging and the greater availability of medications. However, polypharmacy can lead to adverse drug events, suboptimal medication adherence, increased healthcare costs, and reduced quality of life. Deprescribing, on the other hand, involves the discontinuation or reduction of unnecessary or potentially harmful medications to improve patient outcomes. The findings presented in this review highlight the current state of deprescribing and polypharmacy practices in Jordan, including factors influencing their prevalence. Additionally, it discusses the challenges healthcare professionals face in implementing deprescribing strategies and identifies potential solutions for enhancing these practices in Jordanian healthcare settings. Moreover, this paper provides insights into future directions for deprescribing and polypharmacy practices in Jordan. Overall, this review offers valuable insights into the current landscape of deprescribing and polypharmacy practices in Jordan while also providing recommendations for future directions to optimize medication management strategies that can ultimately benefit patient outcomes within a sound healthcare system framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The Care Home Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS) process evaluation hypothesized that contextual factors influenced the likelihood of deprescribing by pharmacist-independent prescribers. The aim of this paper is to test this hypothesis. Methods: From CHIPPS study data, medications deprescribed totalled 284 for 370 residents in UK care homes. Regression analysis was used to describe the relationship between the number of medicines stopped and contextual factors (number of residents cared for, pharmacist employment within associated medical practice, previous care home experience, hours active within trial, years’ experience as a pharmacist and as a prescriber). Results: Number of residents and pharmacist-independent prescriber employment within a medical practice were positive predictors of deprescribing. Conclusion: Previous experiences were not related to deprescribing likelihood. Increasing the number of residents increases the opportunity for deprescribing and therefore this relationship is intuitive. The location within a medical practice is an interesting finding that requires further exploration to understand its exact nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clear evidence of overprescribing of psychotropic medicines to manage behaviours that challenges in people with intellectual disabilities has led to national programmes within the U.K. such as NHS England's STOMP to address this. The focus of the intervention in our review was deprescribing of psychotropic medicines in children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Mental health symptomatology and quality of life were main outcomes. Methods: We reviewed the evidence using databases Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL and Open Grey with an initial cut-off date of 22nd August 2020 and an update on 14th March 2022. The first reviewer (DA) extracted data using a bespoke form and appraised study quality using CASP and Murad tools. The second reviewer (CS) independently assessed a random 20% of papers. Results: Database searching identified 8675 records with 54 studies included in the final analysis. The narrative synthesis suggests that psychotropic medicines can sometimes be deprescribed. Positive and negative consequences were reported. Positive effects on behaviour, mental and physical health were associated with an interdisciplinary model. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review of the effects of deprescribing psychotropic medicines in people with intellectual disabilities which is not limited to antipsychotics. Main risks of bias were underpowered studies, poor recruitment processes, not accounting for other concurrent interventions and short follow up periods. Further research is needed to understand how to address the negative effects of deprescribing interventions. Trial registration: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42019158079) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Evidence of overprescribing of psychotropic medicines to manage challenging behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities has led to national programmes within the UK to promote deprescribing, such as stopping the overprescribing of medication in people (with learning disabilities, autism or both). To successfully implement deprescribing initiatives, we need to understand how to engage stakeholders in the process. Design/methodology/approach: In a published systematic review, we reported evidence about the process of deprescribing psychotropic medicines for people of all ages with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour. As a part of the original review, we searched for evidence about stakeholders' experiences of the psychotropic deprescribing process, which was synthesised and reported within the current study. Findings: Six studies were identified. Involving carers and people with intellectual disabilities, providing ongoing support and improving access to non-pharmacological interventions, including positive behaviour support, may contribute to successful outcomes, including reducing or stopping psychotropic medicines and improving quality of life. Implementing psychotropic deprescribing requires a multidisciplinary collaborative care approach and education for stakeholders. Originality/value: There have been no previous reviews of stakeholder experiences of deprescribing psychotropic medications for people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour. The existing literature is scant, and further research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Polypharmacy, the concurrent use of multiple medicines by one individual, is a common and growing challenge driven by an ageing population and the growing number of people living longer with chronic conditions. Up to 11% of unplanned hospital admissions in the UK are attributable to, mostly avoidable, harm from medicines. However, this topic is not yet central to integrated practice. This paper reviews the challenge that polypharmacy presents to the health and care system and offers lessons for integrated policy and practice. Design/methodology/approach: Two commonly encountered scenarios illustrate the relevance of addressing inappropriate polypharmacy to integrated practice. An overview of the literature on polypharmacy and frailty, including two recent large studies of policy and practice in Europe, identifies lessons for practitioners, managers, policy makers and commissioners. Findings: Comprehensive change strategies should extend beyond pharmacist led deprescribing initiatives. An inter-professional and systems thinking approach is required, so all members of the integrated team can play their part in realising the value of holistic prescribing, appropriate polypharmacy and shared decision making. Practical implications: Awareness and education about polypharmacy should be embedded in inter-professional training for all practitioners who care for people with multimorbidity or frailty. Originality/value: This paper will help policy makers, commissioners, managers and practitioners understand the value of addressing polypharmacy within their integrated services. Best practice national guidance developed in Scotland illustrates how to target resources so those at greatest risk of harm from polypharmacy can benefit from effective pharmaceutical care as part of holistic integrated care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthy ageing has become one of the most significant challenges in a society with an increasing life expectancy. Older adults have a greater prevalence of chronic disease, with the need for multiple medications to appropriately control these issues. In addition to their health concerns, ageing individuals are prone to loneliness, dependence, and economic issues, which may affect their quality of life. Governments and health professionals worldwide have developed various strategies to promote active and healthy ageing to improve the quality of life of older adults. Pharmacists are highly qualified health professionals, easily accessible to the population, thus playing a pivotal role in medication management. Their proximity to the patient puts them in a unique position to provide education and training to improve therapeutic adherence and identify medication-related problems. This paper aims to address the importance of Portuguese community pharmacists in the medication management of older adults, emphasising their intervention in health promotion, patient education, medication-related problems, deprescription, dose administration aids, and medication review and reconciliation. We also discuss home delivery services and medication management in long-term care facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is known and objective: Use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) remains common in older adults, despite the easy availability of screening tools such as the Beers and Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria. Multiple published studies have implemented these screening tools to encourage deprescribing of PIMs, with mixed results. Little is known about the reasons behind the success or failure of these interventions, or what could be done to improve their impact. Implementation science (IS) provides a set of theories, models and frameworks to address these questions. The goal of this study was to conduct a focused narrative review of the deprescribing literature through an IS lens—to determine the extent to which implementation factors were identified and the intermediate steps in the intervention were measured. A better understanding of the existing literature, including its gaps, may provide a roadmap for future research. Methods: PubMed search from 2000‐2019 using appropriate MeSH headings. Inclusion criteria: controlled trials or prospective cohort studies intended to reduce PIMs in the elderly that used hospitalizations and/or emergency department visits as outcome measures. Studies were reviewed to identify potential implementation factors (known as determinants), using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a guide. In addition, intermediate outcomes were extracted. Results and discussion: Of the 548 reviewed abstracts, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent detailed analysis. Of the 14 studies, 10 acknowledged potential implementation determinants that could be mapped onto CFIR. The most commonly identified determinant was the degree of pharmacist integration into the medical team (seven of 14 studies), which mapped onto the CFIR construct of 'networks and communication'. Several important CFIR constructs were absent in the reviewed literature. Intermediate measures were captured by 12 of the 14 reviewed papers, but the choice of measures was inconsistent across studies. What is new and conclusion: In recent high‐quality studies of deprescribing interventions, we found limited acknowledgement of factors known to be important to successful implementation and inconsistent reporting of intermediate outcomes. These findings indicate missed opportunities to understand the factors underlying study outcomes. As a result, we run the risk of rejecting worthwhile interventions due to negative results, when the correct interpretation might be that they failed in implementation. In other words, they were 'lost in translation'. Studies that rigorously examine and report on the implementation process are needed to tease apart this important distinction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Polypharmacy, or the simultaneous use of multiple medications, represents a significant public health challenge--particularly among older adults, who are more likely to experience negative clinical outcomes attributable to adverse reactions to or interactions between their medications (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2013). Improved medication management on the part of both patients and health care providers (HCPs) is needed to address the issues and consequences associated with polypharmacy, but conversations between patients and their HCPs about options for medication changes remain the exception. In a rural community near Ottawa, Ontario, a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach aimed to support improved public awareness of and participation in medication management and deprescribing through educational events aimed at older adults. This paper describes the processes researchers used in collaboration with community members to discuss and address medication management in a locally relevant manner, details the results of these processes, and suggests how similar approaches may be employed to empower patients and communities to address issues of personal health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Deprescribing can reduce the use of inappropriate or unnecessary medication; however, the economic value of such interventions is uncertain. Objective: This study seeks to identify and synthetise the economic evidence of deprescribing interventions among community-dwelling older adults. Methods: Full economic evaluation studies of deprescribing interventions, conducted in the community or primary care settings, in community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EconLit, Scopus, Web of Science, CEA-TUFTS, CRD York and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to February 2021. Two researchers independently screened all retrieved articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main outcome was the economic impact of the intervention from any perspective, converted into 2019 US Dollars. The World Health Organization threshold of 1 gross domestic product per capita was used to define cost effectiveness. Studies were appraised for methodological quality using the extended Consensus on Health Economics Criteria checklist. Results: Of 6154 articles identified by the search strategy, 14 papers assessing 13 different interventions were included. Most deprescribing interventions included some type of medication review with or without a supportive educational component (n = 11, 85%), and in general were delivered within a pharmacist-physician care collaboration. Settings included community pharmacies, primary care/outpatient clinics and patients' homes. All economic evaluations were conducted within a time horizon varying from 2 to 12 months with outcomes in most of the studies derived from a single clinical trial. Main health outcomes were reported in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, prevented number of falls and the medication appropriateness index. Cost effectiveness ranged from dominant to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $112,932 per quality-adjusted life-year, a value above the country's World Health Organization threshold. Overall, 85% of the interventions were cost saving, dominated usual care or were cost effective considering 1 gross domestic product per capita. Nine studies scored > 80% (good) and two scored ≤ 50% (low) on critical quality appraisal. Conclusions: There is a growing interest in economic evaluations of deprescribing interventions focused on community-dwelling older adults. Although results varied across setting, time horizon and intervention, most were cost effective according to the World Health Organization threshold. Deprescribing interventions are promising from an economic viewpoint, but more studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anticholinergic drugs are prescribed for a range of conditions including gastrointestinal disorders, overactive bladder, allergies, and depression. While in some circumstances anticholinergic effects are therapeutic, they also pose many undesired or adverse effects. The overall impact from concomitant use of multiple medications with anticholinergic properties is termed anticholinergic burden (ACB). Greater ACB is associated with increased risks of impaired physical and cognitive function, falls, cardiovascular events, and mortality. This has led to the development of interventions aimed at reducing ACB through the deprescribing of anticholinergic drugs. However, little is known about the implementation issues that may influence successful embedding and integration of such interventions into routine clinical practice. In this paper, we present the protocol for our systematic review that aims to identify the qualitative evidence for the barriers and facilitators to reduce ACB from the perspectives of patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. A comprehensive search strategy will be conducted across OVID Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL. The review will be conducted in accordance with ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) and has been registered with PROSPERO (Registration CRD42018109084). Normalization process theory (NPT) will be used to explore, understand, and explain qualitative data in relation to factors that act as barriers or facilitators to ACB reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Older adults are at high risk for medication harm from polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications. Patient-driven deprescribing is an emerging approach aimed at increasing patient knowledge and strengthening self-advocacy skills. We used Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to engage stakeholders in developing an educational intervention on patient-driven deprescribing. Objective: To integrate participants into research design by presenting materials and eliciting feedback to better inform a patient-driven deprescribing intervention and its implementation in primary care. Study design and Analysis: The stakeholders pilot-tested the research materials (letters, consent form, brochures, survey tool) on paper or online and participated in semi-structured interviews to elicit feedback. Setting: Western New York. Population studied: Elder Voices, an active group of older adults who had previously participated in developing the educational materials. N =7 (4 paper; 3 online). Instrument: The semi-structured interview was developed based on cognitive interviewing to ensure that the stakeholders interpreted the research materials and survey questions correctly. Outcome measures: Qualitative data to inform the research intervention. Results: Participants suggested lay language and clarification of terms in the survey and brochures and insertion of additional graphics and visualizations for reader engagement. The interviewees were concerned about the length and use of academic language in the letters, consent form, and surveys. They also cited lack of technological capacity for some older adults to access the online intervention tool. Modifications to the research materials were incorporated within the parameters of institutional requirements and finalized for use in a primary care practice. Conclusions: The CBPR process with Elder Voices informed the design of the educational intervention and research materials. The study contributes to deprescribing research as an example of how CBPR may be used to engage older adults in developing a deprescribing study. Including stakeholders in the research design provides an equitable voice to those impacted by the intervention. Further, it provides insight to the research team on how to better equip patients with the correct knowledge and tools to become empowered participants in their healthcare decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deprescribing is defined as "the planned and supervised process of dose reduction or stopping of medication that might be causing harm, or no longer be of benefit". Barriers to deprescribing include healthcare professional fear and lack of guidance. These may stem from limited available evidence on benefits and harms of deprescribing medications commonly used among older persons. Advances in pharmacoepidemiology and causal inference methods to evaluate comparative effectiveness and safety of prescribing medications have yet to be considered for deprescribing medication. This paper discusses select methods and how they can be applied to deprescribing research, using case studies of benzodiazepines and low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin). Target trial emulation involves the explicit application of design principles from randomised controlled trials to observational studies. Several design aspects, including defining eligibility criteria and time zero, require additional considerations for deprescribing studies. The active comparator new user design also presents challenges, including selection of an appropriate comparator. This paper discusses these aspects, and others, in relation to deprescribing studies. Furthermore, methods proposed to control for confounding, in particular, the prior event rate ratio and propensity scores, are discussed. Introduction of billing codes or mechanisms for accurately determining when deprescribing has occurred would enhance the ability to conduct research using routinely collected data. Although the approaches discussed in this paper may strengthen observational studies of deprescribing, their use may be best suited to certain scenarios or research questions, where randomised controlled trials may be less feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Deprescribing, a relatively recent concept, has been proposed as a promising solution to the growing issues of polypharmacy and use of medications of questionable benefit among older adults. However, little is known about the health outcomes of deprescribing interventions. Objective: This paper presents the protocol of a study that aims to contribute to the knowledge on deprescribing by addressing two specific objectives: (1) describe the impact of deprescribing in adults ≥60 years on health outcomes or quality of life; and (2) determine the characteristics of effective interventions in deprescribing. Methods: Primary studies targeting three concepts (older adults, deprescribing, and health or quality of life outcomes) will be included in the review. The search will be performed using key international databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ageline, PsycInfo), and a special effort will be made to identify gray literature. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles, extract the information, and evaluate the quality of the selected studies. If methodologically feasible, meta-analyses will be performed for groups of intervention studies reporting on deprescribing interventions for similar medications, used for similar or identical indications, and reporting on similar outcomes (eg, benzodiazepines used against insomnia and studies reporting on quality of sleep or quality of life). Alternatively, the results will be presented in bottom-line statements (objective 1) and a matrix outlining effective interventions (objective 2). Results: The knowledge synthesis may be limited by the availability of high-quality clinical trials on deprescribing and their outcomes in older adults. Additionally, analyses will likely be affected by studies on the deprescribing of different types of molecules within the same indication (eg, different pharmacological classes and medications to treat hypertension) and different measures of health and quality of life outcomes for the same indication. Nevertheless, we expect the review to identify which deprescribing interventions lead to improved health outcomes among seniors and which of their characteristics contribute to these outcomes. Conclusions: This systematic review will contribute to a better understanding of the health outcomes of deprescribing interventions among seniors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deborah Robertson provides an overview of recently published articles that may be of interest to non-medical prescribers. Should you wish to look at any of the papers in more detail, a full reference is provided [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medicines management in care homes requires significant improvement. CHIPPS was a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of integrating pharmacist independent prescribers into care homes to assume central responsibility for medicines management. This paper reports the parallel mixed-methods process evaluation.Method: Intervention arm consisted of 25 triads: Care homes (staff and up to 24 residents), General Practitioner (GP) and Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP). Data sources were pharmaceutical care plans (PCPs), pharmacist activity logs, online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results were mapped to the process evaluation objectives following the Medical Research Council framework.Results: PCPs and activity logs were available from 22 PIPs. Questionnaires were returned by 16 PIPs, eight GPs, and two care home managers. Interviews were completed with 14 PIPs, eight GPs, nine care home managers, six care home staff, and one resident. All stakeholders reported some benefits from PIPs having responsibility for medicine management and identified no safety concerns. PIPs reported an increase in their knowledge and identified the value of having time to engage with care home staff and residents during reviews. The research paperwork was identified as least useful by many PIPs. PIPs conducted medication reviews on residents, recording 566 clinical interventions, many involving deprescribing; 93.8% of changes were sustained at 6 months. For 284 (50.2%) residents a medicine was stopped, and for a quarter of residents, changes involved a medicine linked to increased falls risk. Qualitative data indicated participants noted increased medication safety and improved resident quality of life. Contextual barriers to implementation were apparent in the few triads where PIP was not known previously to the GP and care home before the trial. In three triads, PIPs did not deliver the intervention.Conclusions: The intervention was generally implemented as intended, and well-received by most stakeholders. Whilst there was widespread deprescribing, contextual factors effected opportunity for PIP engagement in care homes. Implementation was most effective when communication pathways between PIP and GP had been previously well-established.Trial Registration: The definitive RCT was registered with the ISRCTN registry (registration number  ISRCTN 17847169 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medication management for older persons can be complex. With over 50% of all hospital admissions being for people aged over 65 years, understanding age‐related functional, cognitive and social factor changes and their impact on medication use is critical for pharmacists working in most adult medicine areas. This paper provides an overview of critical elements of medication management for older persons for pharmacists. Key elements include age‐related changes impacting medication effectiveness and safety, frailty, geriatric syndromes, polypharmacy and deprescribing, minimising medication‐related harm at transitions of care, dose administration aids and other strategies to support individuals in medication management and multidisciplinary comprehensive geriatric assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deborah Robertson provides an overview of recently published articles that may be of interest to non-medical prescribers. Should you wish to look at any of the papers in more detail, a full reference is provided [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: Deprescribing is an increasingly common term in the literature, although no specific accepted definition exists. We aimed to clarify the concept of deprescribing as used in research and clinical practice. Methods: Deprescribing was examined using the eight‐step Walker and Avant method of concept analysis that consisted of: (i) concept selection; (ii) determining the purpose of the analysis; (iii) identifying uses of the concept; (iv) determining the critical attributes; (v) identifying the model case; (vi) identifying borderline and contrary cases; (vii) identifying antecedents and consequences; and (viii) defining empirical referents. A literature search was conducted on the word de?prescri*. Results: We identified seven critical attributes: withdrawing medications, de‐escalation, intended outcomes, structured and iterative process, intervention, risk to benefit, and patient‐centred care. Deprescribing antecedents were identified as changing health, changing goals for health care, and polypharmacy. Deprescribing consequences identified were compliance, health outcomes, mortality and cost, and possibility for adverse drug withdrawal events to occur. We used the model case, borderline and contrary cases and empirical referents to illustrate the concept of deprescribing. Conclusions: Deprescribing is a term used with varying degrees of precision, and there is no accepted definition. In this paper, we have analysed the concept of deprescribing and identified it as a patient‐centred process of medication withdrawal intended to achieve improved health outcomes through discontinuation of one or more medications that are either potentially harmful or no longer required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The over-reliance on psychotropic medication for the management of patients with learning disabilities with behaviour that challenges is well documented.This paper aims to discuss the application of the methodology of clinical audit within community learning disability mental health services to adapt interventions including optimising prescribing practice and behavioural interventions aiming to reduce behaviour that challenges in people with learning disabilities. Design/methodology/approach: Questionnaire-based review of documentation in electronic patient records, covering relevant audit standards in line with NICE and Royal College of Psychiatrists, was carried out in the North Essex Community Learning Disability Service, Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. The audit included patients on the caseload of consultant psychiatrists. Findings: The audit demonstrated that the prescribing of psychotropic medication was within BNF maximum limits for all patients, evidence of "consent" procedures was being followed in the majority, and there was some evidence of deprescribing attempts.Improvement was required in several areas e.g. undocumented off label prescribing in a significant proportion of patients. Objective measures to record the severity of behaviours and the effects of the medication were being used by clinicians in only a small proportion of patients. A significant proportion of patients have prescribed medication in the absence of appropriate psychological or environmental interventions. Originality/value: As a result of the audit findings, the action plan made recommendations such as the development of a database for tracking the prescribing of psychotropic medicines and routine use of standardised measures. This action has been supported by the pharmacy team. Positive developments include a clinical psychologist taking on the role of leading the development of behavioural intervention strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Polypharmacy is inevitable and appropriate for many conditions, but in some cases, it can be problematic resulting in an increased risk of harm and reduced quality of life. There has been an increasing interest to reduce cardioprotective medications in older adults to potentially reduce the risk of harm due to treatment; however, there is no evidence on safety and efficacy to support this practice currently. This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review on the safety and efficacy of reducing cardioprotective medication in older populations. Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) will be searched from their inception onwards for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies on interventions (prospective, retrospective cohort, case-control) conducted in older adults (75 years or older) examining reduction of cardioprotective medications will be included. The primary outcome of this study will be all-cause hospitalisation. Secondary outcome variables of interest are all-cause hospitalisation, mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events, falls, fractures, cognitive functioning, bleeding events, renal functioning, medication burden, drug reinstatement, time-in-hospital, and frailty status. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract data. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach; the risk of bias will be assessed by the RoB-II tool for randomised controlled studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies. Where sufficient data are available, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis by combining the outcomes of the included studies. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression are planned to assess the potential harms and risks of different drug classes and the impacts in different patient populations (e.g. sex, cognitive status, renal status, and age). Discussion: The study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles identified using our search strategy on the safety and efficacy of cardioprotective medication reduction in the older population. The findings will be crucial to inform clinicians on potential health outcomes of reducing cardiovascular medication in the elderly. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020208223 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Perioperative initiation of opioids continues to be a major contributor to chronic use, misuse and diversion in regional areas. There is considerable effort to mitigate harm through avoiding excessive prescribing and reducing the risk of persistent postoperative opioid use. Improving perioperative documentation practices has been reported to ensure appropriate opioid initiation and de‐escalation. It has not been established whether these strategies are utilised in regional hospitals. Methods: A retrospective observational study of perioperative opioid prescribing and documentation practices in Goulburn Base Hospital, a regional centre in the Southern New South Wales (NSW) Local Health District. Data were collected from 110 records and validated for adult patients undergoing elective total knee replacement (TKR) or total hip replacement (THR) from 12 January 2020 to 13 January 2021. Outcome Measures: To observe perioperative opioid prescribing and utilisation of harm reduction strategies in a regional hospital. Results: 65% of patients were opioid naïve (ON). Preoperative pain assessments and patient education were completed in 23% and 15% of records, respectively. Postoperative opioids were prescribed for 99% of patients, with 74% prescribed a slow‐release (SR) formulation. 50% of patients were discharged with an SR prescription. Inadequate postoperative pain control was reported in 21% of patients. Of the 103 patients prescribed opioids on discharge, only 20% included a de‐escalation plan and only 35% of discharge summaries included dose and quantity of opioids supplies. Conclusions: This study has identified underutilisation of perioperative harm reduction strategies despite the potential to improve appropriate initiation and de‐escalation of opioids. These findings highlight opportunities for improvement in regional hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The care of older patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. Common challenges for this population include management of comorbidities, safe transitions of care, and appropriate medication use. In particular, polypharmacy—generally defined as the regular use of five or more medications—and inappropriate medication use can lead to adverse effects and poor outcomes in older adults with cancer, including falls, hospital readmissions, cognitive impairment, poor adherence to essential medications, chemotherapy toxicity, and increased mortality. Managing polypharmacy across different cancer care settings is often challenging. Providers face barriers to safe and successful medication management that may include lack of time, absence of reimbursement, underappreciation of the scale of polypharmacy-related harm, lack of ownership of deprescribing efforts, and poor communication across care settings. Existing literature on managing inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy in older adults with cancer has often focused on ideal state settings in which resources are plentiful and time is purposefully allocated for medication interventions. This paper presents a narrative, rather than a systematic review, of studies published in the past decade that provided detailed information on medication management and polypharmacy across cancer care settings. This review aims to also summarize different healthcare provider roles in taking action against inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy in older adults with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Pharmacists are in a unique position to identify medications that should be deprescribed. Including deprescribing as part of medical and pharmacy curriculum has been proposed as a substantial change to increase the practice of deprescribing. The aims of this study were to evaluate if pharmacy students were exposed to the term of deprescribing in their classes and how they were taught about it (e.g., lecture, case problems, experiential). We also aimed to assess the deprescribing knowledge, attitudes, abilities, and confidence of pharmacy students in Jordan. Methods: Both paper-based and online questionnaires surveys were distributed to third year pharmacy students and above at 12 schools of pharmacy in addition to graduated student (bachelors and diploma). The survey included three sections, including (i) demographics and questions on their exposure to deprescribing and other experiences within their curriculum; (ii) questions regarding their attitudes, ability, and confidence regarding deprescribing, and (iii) questions to assess the factors that may influence the deprescribing process from the students' perspectives. Study responses were extracted from Google Form® as an Excel sheet and exported into Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Armonk, NY: IBM Corp, USA) for statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics, including frequency and proportions, were calculated and reported appropriately. Results: Around half of the participating students (n=202, 49.5%) were familiar with the term "Deprescribing," and only 74 (18.1%) students reported exposure to deprescribing instruction through required coursework. Less than half (n=193, 47.3%) reported exposure during elective courses, and fewer (n=47, 11.5%) reported exposure in both required and elective courses. Less than half of the students (n=191, 46.8%) were confident to recommend deprescribing strategies for health care providers in patients with potentially inappropriate medications. Conclusion: The results of this study revealed that pharmacy students' attitudes and perceptions about deprescribing were generally positive, however, for didactic and experiential training, pharmacy schools should assess their curricula and consider adding content and assessment of deprescribing knowledge and skills. INSET: RFC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deprescribing has mostly developed in older adult care as a strategy to reverse the potential harm to older adults of receiving too many inappropriate medicines. There are many studies in older adult care that show that by deprescribing medicines, prescribers are able to improve patient function, generate a higher quality of life, and reduce bothersome signs and symptoms. However, there have been few comparable studies in mental health. Overprescribing or inappropriate prescribing has also become an issue for mental health care. However, it commonly relates to psychotropic medicines and, in particular, to antidepressants, benzodiazepines, z hypnotics, antiepileptics, such as pregabalin, and to multiple psychotropic prescribing. In other areas of therapy associated with physical health, the concerns have generally been those of under prescribing. This paper discusses how relevant deprescribing is to mental health care and some of the issues to consider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]